ProfessorOhki:Could go either way, I suppose, but there's a huge gap between atheism and having a distaste for organized religion.

Yes, but my whole point, since the beginning of this little discussion, was taking exception to the graphics a few people put up implying that there either is no such thing as a militant atheist, or that they are harmless and nonviolent. I've been trying to show that militant atheists exist. They are however, very rare. Then again, militant Christians or militant Muslims are quite rare too.

Dawkins isn't a militant atheist, he's just an obnoxious atheist jerk, and by being a jerk he gets publicity and attention and thus book sales and money. He believes what he's saying, but the antagonistic style helps him make money.

I'm just trying to show that pretty much any ideology or belief system (and yes, atheism is an ideology) can become militant or be a part of a larger militant movement.

Even Buddhism, one of the more pacifist religions normally, has had violent movements, like the Ikko-Ikki Sect of 15th and 16th century Japan or the Buddhist Uprising of 1966 in South Vietnam.

Atheism has had its hand in the communist atrocities of the 20th century.

Atheism does not inherently require violence and can be quite peaceful and ethical, but so can Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, ect.

Uh, why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god create Free Will in such a way that it made Evil possible? An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would know how to create Free Will without also enabling man to create Sin, would be able to follow through, and would very much want to make it happen. The notion that you can't have free will without evil is false.

Free will without choice is not free at all, therefore the evil are as neccessary as the good.

Communist propaganda has always placed religion right alongside the bourgeois as enemies of the people. Atheism is an integral that belief system, has been since day one.

The church, not the religious. The church. The church used to be part of the system that kept the peons in place. Still is, in some places. As part of the ruling class, the church was an enemy of the people. If you want to start a revolution, you have to attack the existing power structure. In the 1800s, the church was very much part of the power structure.

Silverstaff:Yes, but my whole point, since the beginning of this little discussion, was taking exception to the graphics a few people put up implying that there either is no such thing as a militant atheist, or that they are harmless and nonviolent. I've been trying to show that militant atheists exist. They are however, very rare.

RedVentrue:Free will without choice is not free at all, therefore the evil are as neccessary as the good.

Then evil is not evil and Hitler was no worse than Gandhi.

No, evil is not necessary, and there is no choice or free will involved at all. As I stated further upthread; I have morals. They prevent me from doing "evil." I have no choice in the matter.

An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would have been able to set up a universe were free will was possible without evil. He would have known how to make it happen, would have been able to make it happen, and would have the motive to make it happen.Which is why I can say with absolute certainty that there is no all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god.

Uncle Tractor:Then evil is not evil and Hitler was no worse than Gandhi.

[more words]

we will take that as a 'no'

and fyi, you have ethics not "morals", and there is nothing about the inherent properties of ethics that prevent you from doing evil, even being aware of Morality does not magically prevent one from doing things contrariwise

I drunk what:and fyi, you have ethics not "morals", and there is nothing about the inherent properties of ethics that prevent you from doing evil, even being aware of Morality does not magically prevent one from doing things contrariwise

Nothing magical about it. There are choices I can't make, because my brain is wired in a certain way. If you really have to ponder whether to hurt people or not, then I'm glad I'll never meet you IRL.

BTW: If you look up "ethics" you'll get stuff like "Ethics: a system of moral principles," so you're not really adding anything to the discussion.

Well, that was quite a bit more than one. Yes, I am quite aware that there are situations where I might act differently WRT some of the above, but not all. Can you guess which?

Uncle Tractor: If you really have to ponder whether to hurt people or not, then I'm glad I'll never meet you IRL.

i have to ponder hurting people (both physically and mentally) all the time, because as an intelligent person i am aware that it is sometimes necessary for their own good

You knew perfectly well I wasn't talking about medical treatment. You're just clouding the issue.

Uncle Tractor: If you look up "ethics" you'll get stuff like "Ethics: a system of moral principles,"what will happen if i look up "Nature" ? are you adding anything to this discussion or just doing the opposite?because it feels like the latter

You drank what?

some of us have decided to continue our edumucation beyond that of a dictionary, while others of us have come to realize the limits of Man's understanding and have even moved beyond that

Where are those limits? What did you find on the far side of those limits?

Religion, and ultimately a far more complete view of the "Truth about Reality" puzzle.

Science is just the tip of the iceburg. But that is all some are able to handle. So perhaps it is better that they devote their entire life to studying it. I suppose we could always use more knowledge for something?

Uncle Tractor:Silverstaff: Yes, but my whole point, since the beginning of this little discussion, was taking exception to the graphics a few people put up implying that there either is no such thing as a militant atheist, or that they are harmless and nonviolent. I've been trying to show that militant atheists exist. They are however, very rare.

Dawkins isn't a militant atheist, he's just an obnoxious atheist jerk, and by being a jerk he gets publicity and attention and thus book sales and money.

In what way is he an obnoxious jerk? Examples ...?

He believes what he's saying, but the antagonistic style helps him make money.

Dawkins the least antagonistic of these so-called "new atheists." I suspect you're just mouthing truisms you've picked up from Fox News.

I'm just trying to show that pretty much any ideology or belief system (and yes, atheism is an ideology) can become militant or be a part of a larger militant movement.

No, atheism is not an ideology. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. Nothing more.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I find it incredibly amusing, and ironic, that you're accusing me of parroting FOX News.

I have years speaking out in favor of single-payer socialized healthcare, publicly speaking out against the Iraq War, advocating for higher taxes, supporting sustainable agriculture and environmentalism, AND being part of an Occupy protest.

I'm a registered Democrat who can't remember the last time he voted Republican, and gave as much to the Obama campaign as I could afford to. I spent the entire election season laughing at teabaggers and trying to point out how Emperor Romney had no clothes.

I've lost some of the friends I grew up with because I kept trying to point out to them that the US can't ban Islam and why "Separation of Church and State" is NOT something "liberals" made up to oppress Christians.

However, despite decades of liberalism, in the last week on Fark I've now been accused of being nothing but a mindless Republican parrot of FOX News twice. Once for being firmly opposed to further gun control, seeing it both clearly unnecessary to public safety and a blatant violation of civil liberties. Now for having faith, seeing that the belief system of atheism has no moral high ground compared to theism, and the public champion of atheist dogma.

I'm a left-winger, but I'm no stereotype. I have faith, I support second amendment rights just as much as I do first, fourth, et al., and I would love to see Bradley Manning in front of a firing squad. . .but none of that doesn't mean that I'm left wing. I'm just not a two-dimensional stereotype of a liberal. I step away from the liberal rank-and-file and the liberal echo chamber (yeah, we've got one too, it's more about blogs and internet message boards than cable news and talk radio), and I'm accused of being just another FOX News spouting dittohead?

Now, as for proof of Richard Dawkins being a loudmouthed jackass:

" "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fark off." Richard Dawkins, in 2006 in response to a question by Neil DeGrasse Tyson at a conference (with video proof). That's definitely being an obnoxious jerk. Here's the funny thing, right or wrong, you can still be a jerk, but if you're a jerk, a lot fewer people will listen to your message and people will start to ignore anything you say (like how being a chronic troll here on Fark winds you up on peoples ignore lists).

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig A tirade published in The Guardian where he basically says that Christianity condones genocide and he is so sure that atheism is correct that he refuses to debate it with theologians, especially a theologian who has built his entire career about proving the case of Christianity vs. atheism and agnosticism, because he won't dignify Christianity with a response.

Link Dawkins own speeches call for atheists to "ridicule and show contempt" to Catholics especially, but to the religious in general.

Sure sounds like being antagonistic to me

Link Here's Dawkins being a general jackass online insulting feminists, basically telling women that if they aren't as bad off as the women in Saudi Arabia they have nothing to complain about and should just shut up.

As for atheism being an ideology:

Just saying: "I don't believe in God" isn't an ideology. When you start writing lengthy books about it, arguing why not only is there no God, but that people who believe in God are delusional and worthy of mockery, it starts becoming an ideology. When you engage in a public campaign to convert other people to your own belief, it starts to become an ideology. When you intentionally mimic the symbols and rituals of religion for mockery to bring attention to your beliefs (like Darwin-fish and un-baptism ceremonies), it becomes an ideology. When you actually create symbols for what you believe:

Guess what, you're an ideology. When you get butthurt because somebody suggests that the leader is a jerk because of how he acts, when you go around insulting people of other belief systems trying to berate them into believing the same way you do, when you hold public rallies in Washington devoted to what you believe, you're an ideology.

i see. so then you are physically incapable of doing any of those things? because for some magical reason your free will has been handicapped? do tell

Did I say anything about being physically incapable of doing these things? Are you moving goalposts?

Uncle Tractor: Where are those limits?Science

Fair enough. The sum total of human knowledge comes from science.

Uncle Tractor: What did you find on the far side of those limits?Religion, and ultimately a far more complete view of the "Truth about Reality" puzzle.

In what way do a bunch of made-up stories provide a more complete view of reality?

Science is just the tip of the iceburg.

Science is just a tool. A very useful, potent tool, and the only tool we have for explaining reality. All religion does is provide stock phrases and made-up answers that don't really explain anything. "God only knows," "God moves in mysterious ways ..." Bah.

I have years speaking out in favor of single-payer socialized healthcare, publicly speaking out against

(snip left-wing cred)

blogs and internet message boards than cable news and talk radio), and I'm accused of being just another FOX News spouting dittohead?

My mistake.

I forgot that the far right and the far left often use similar arguments when it comes to religion vs science. When it comes to Dawkins, you and Fox viewers sound a lot alike.

Now, as for proof of Richard Dawkins being a loudmouthed jackass:

" "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fark off." Richard Dawkins, in 2006 in response to a question by Neil DeGrasse Tyson at a conference (with video proof). That's definitely being an obnoxious jerk.

Yeah, that's a nice example of the cherry-picking typical of people who want to make Dawkins out to be a jerk. Here's the quote in context. Was he still being an obnoxious jerk? Or was he quoting somebody else?

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig A tirade published in The Guardian where he basically says that Christianity condones genocide and he is so sure that atheism is correct that he refuses to debate it with theologians, especially a theologian who has built his entire career about proving the case of Christianity vs. atheism and agnosticism, because he won't dignify Christianity with a response.

Did you actually read the article you linked to?

Link Dawkins own speeches call for atheists to "ridicule and show contempt" to Catholics especially, but to the religious in general.

Sure sounds like being antagonistic to me

Yeah, an article by some butthurt theist is a good, neutral source. Stuff like this is why I thought you were a Fox viewer.

Link Here's Dawkins being a general jackass online insulting feminists, basically telling women that if they aren't as bad off as the women in Saudi Arabia they have nothing to complain about and should just shut up.

A slightly more neutral view on the incident. Was he being a jerk? Maybe. Could it just have been a foot-in-mouth incident? Maybe. I wasn't there, Neither were you.So far, it's the only actual example of possible jerkiness you've got, and it's not much.

Personally, I have the impression that Dawkins has, in some ways, led a rather sheltered life, and that he simply does not understand why that woman got upset.

Just saying: "I don't believe in God" isn't an ideology.

Good.

When you start writing lengthy books about it, arguing why not only is there no God, but that people who believe in God are delusional and worthy of mockery, it starts becoming an ideology.

Nope. Have you read God Delusion? He lines up arguments for and against religion (not many, if any for, of course) and reaches a conclusion. There is nothing ideological about it.

Honest question: What would you think about an adult who openly believes in, say, the Easter Bunny? Who wants to build a temple where he can worship the EB? Who wants to convert you to the gospel of the EB? Who has daily conversations with the EB?

Would you think he might be a little off? Delusional perhaps?

If he kept bugging you whenever he thought you had violated the commandments of the EB, would you perhaps begin mocking him?

It is possible to create an ideology around atheism. It's also possible to create an ideology around the color purple. However, that ideology would not be atheism nor the color purple, nor would it represent all atheists or purple objects.

what is your most urgent concern and what do you think ought to be done about it? if i may ask

My most urgent concern is not being killed by fundamentalist whackadoos of any stripe. There's not much I can do about it though, thanks to free will and the fact that they've made a conscious choice to remain ignorant and governed by fear. I'm not terribly worried about the gods or God but their followers tend to make life difficult for anyone who doesn't think and live the way they do, which becomes a problem for the rest of us. I'm not suggesting anyone should panic, but caution when dealing with this type of mentality seems well advised given a cursory glance at human history.

Ishkur:I see IDW is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this three year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the Wason Selection Task with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually revealed that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every religion thread (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.

scalpod:There's not much I can do about it though, thanks to free will and the fact that they've made a conscious choice to remain ignorant and governed by fear.

darn that free will

though i do share your concern, if anyone knows Ishkur in real life i suggest they take him in for psychiatric treatment and keep him away from any weapons, you gotta keep a close eye on those fundamentalist whackadoos

No. He was a cult leader who saw religion as competition and saw fit to dispel it so he could replace the church with the state.

Again with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy from the atheists.

Joseph Stalin:1. Publicly proclaimed that he did not believe in God.2. As the dictator of the USSR, made atheism mandatory, and actively suppressed all religion, and persecuted and even executed clergy and faithful.3. Sponsored a group called the "League of Militant Atheists" to promote the eradication of the very concept of religion.

That's NOT an atheist?

You're saying he's not an atheist because even though he didn't believe in God, he was a bad guy, so obviously not a real atheist?

It does not matter if he was an atheist for the purposes of garnering political power, would you call Ahmadinejad not really a Muslim because he uses Islam for political power? Would you claim that Pat Robertson isn't a Christian because he tried to use Christianity to achieve political power?

No, he was by any definition, an atheist, and he was murderous and highly militant in that pursuit. I know you don't want to think of atheism as being like other belief system in that it can have members that are militant and violent, and that horrible things can be done in its name, but atheism has no moral or ethical high ground to stand on, many millions died in the 20th century because atheistic leaders ordered it done.

Silverstaff:No, he was by any definition, an atheist, and he was murderous and highly militant in that pursuit. I know you don't want to think of atheism as being like other belief system in that it can have members that are militant and violent, and that horrible things can be done in its name, but atheism has no moral or ethical high ground to stand on, many millions died in the 20th century because atheistic leaders ordered it done.

Once again; you are confusing atheism with communism. Yes, Stalin was (most likely) an atheist, but that was just part of being a communist. Did he persecute the churches? Of course he did; they were the competition. They were part of the power structure toppled by the revolution.

Silverstaff:You're saying he's not an atheist because even though he didn't believe in God, he was a bad guy, so obviously not a real atheist?

I want to say something else: Even if Stalin was an atheist and sought to eliminate all religions for the sake of secular humanism and rational inquiry (good luck finding anything like that in any of his speeches)..... so what? What good does it do your argument?

Let me repeat what I wrote earlier that you conveniently neglected:

The whole "who committed more atrocities" argument is a mutually assured destruction debate tactic anyway. Do you really want to count them all up? Cuz if so, then Christianity wins easily. Do you feel better about your side if you can tally it up and show that your beliefs only killed a few million less than their beliefs? Does that make it more right?

once more, with feeling:Today's Christians should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of Christianity, just as today's atheists should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of atheism.

Ishkur:Today's Christians should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of Christianity, just as today's atheists should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of atheism.

I'm just fine with that.

The only reason I started making this argument was to rebut the idea put forth upthread that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, or that militant atheists are harmless compared to militant Christians or militant Muslims.

For every militant Christian shooting up an abortion clinic or being a WBC attention whore, you've got a million Christians being relatively law abiding and peaceful. For every militant Muslim blowing himself up, you've got hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are not radicalized to the point of militancy. For every militant Jew out there assassinating politicians like Rabin, you've got hundreds of thousands who are horrified at bloodshed in the name of their faith.

For every atheist who has commanded that people die for worshiping God, you've got hundreds of thousands or millions who just want to live a peaceful life of reason.

My whole point in this is not to accuse modern atheists of being like Stalin, merely to show that atheism as a belief system has no moral high ground to claim that it is free of the murderous history of religions.

Uncle Tractor:Silverstaff: No, he was by any definition, an atheist, and he was murderous and highly militant in that pursuit. I know you don't want to think of atheism as being like other belief system in that it can have members that are militant and violent, and that horrible things can be done in its name, but atheism has no moral or ethical high ground to stand on, many millions died in the 20th century because atheistic leaders ordered it done.

Once again; you are confusing atheism with communism. Yes, Stalin was (most likely) an atheist, but that was just part of being a communist. Did he persecute the churches? Of course he did; they were the competition. They were part of the power structure toppled by the revolution.

The real question here is:Why are the Atheist, murdering despots all Communist?

Because communism hates religion. That doesn't make it atheist (find me one instance of ANY despot saying "there is no God"), that makes it vehemently opposed to any established systems of order: political, economic, military, and theological. It will violently dispel any threats to the purification of its ideological ethos and religion frequently tops the list.

It's more appropriate to call Communism anti-theist. But I don't think it ever pondered over whether there was a God or not.

Silverstaff:The only reason I started making this argument was to rebut the idea put forth upthread that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, or that militant atheists are harmless compared to militant Christians or militant Muslims.

The reason why its actually quite easy to say that is because atheism predates both Christianity and Islam (Ionian Greeks first proposed it 2500 years ago and it was a central tenet of some sects of Stoicism and Neo-Platonism), and up until the 20th century (according to you), committed no genuine atrocities whatsoever.

If atheism needed communism to become militant, that doesn't say anything about atheism but it says a lot about communism.

Silverstaff:The only reason I started making this argument was to rebut the idea put forth upthread that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, or that militant atheists are harmless compared to militant Christians or militant Muslims.

There is no such thing as a militant atheist, because atheism is not an ideology or a religion. I might as well call you a militant pants-wearer or a militant non-stamp-collector (assuming you don't collect stamps).

Silverstaff:My whole point in this is not to accuse modern atheists of being like Stalin, merely to show that atheism as a belief system has no moral high ground to claim that it is free of the murderous history of religions.

Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods.

and you were doing so good, despite the fact that you had punched up lil tar baby up to the point where you spending more time covering yourself in his shiat than actually making a point

and this^ kiddies is why one ought not to argue with the Idiot Brigade, even when you win you lose, and inevitably become one of them

Silverstaff:merely to show that atheism as a belief system has no moral high ground to claim that it is free of the murderous history of religions

well duh

Silverstaff:My whole point in this is not to accuse modern atheists of being like Stalin

but they are alike (in ideals, philosophy, lacking morality, etc..), what do you suppose would happen if any of these passive-aggressive anti-theists were to be give the opportunity to form-join a group that did have the military capability of a well organized communist organization? read any good history books lately? they are only passive depending on their situation, the aggression kicks in when they have weapons-power to backup their godless agenda.

sorry lad, but you failed

it was a nice go, for a bit there

and you were warned to quit while you were ahead...

but don't worry about them, after all, atheists are just harmless little paperclips:

Uncle Tractor:Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods.

:D

Silverstaff:For every militant Christian shooting up an abortion clinic or being a WBC attention whore, you've got a million Christians being relatively law abiding and peaceful. For every militant Muslim blowing himself up, you've got hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are not radicalized to the point of militancy. For every militant Jew out there assassinating politicians like Rabin, you've got hundreds of thousands who are horrified at bloodshed in the name of their faith.

For every atheist who has commanded that people die for worshiping God, you've got hundreds of thousands or millions who just want to live a peaceful life of reason.

an awful lot of equivocation going on in here, not to mention gross oversimplifications and mischaracterizations , but once you've jumped on the "im ok you're ok" bandwagon guess what happens to your perspective?

FYI, he already knows he's beaten you, he's just trying to troll you further into agreeing with him and recanting anything you said previously

and i must say he is doing a fine job, it's almost as if tar is running in his veins, maybe even his bones are made of tar?

how many punches does it take to get the sticky center of a tar baby pop?

I drunk what:Silverstaff: My whole point in this is not to accuse modern atheists of being like Stalin

but they are alike (in ideals, philosophy, lacking morality, etc..),

Do you actually believe that? Are you really that ignorant? Or just trolling?

what do you suppose would happen if any of these passive-aggressive anti-theists were to be give the opportunity to form-join a group that did have the military capability of a well organized communist organization?

And once again a theist is too ignorant to tell the difference between atheism and communism.

read any good history books lately? they are only passive depending on their situation, the aggression kicks in when they have weapons-power to backup their godless agenda.

Atheists have no agenda. There is no such thing as an "atheist agenda." Want to know what happens when atheists are dominant? Look at northern Europe.

but don't worry about them, after all, atheists are just harmless little paperclips:

Uncle Tractor: Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods.

i'm already familiar with history, i don't have to wait and see if this time is going to be different

just like i don't need to know what happens when muslims are dominant, or hindus, or buddhists, or any other religious faction

but you just go on and keep pretending that there is actually some sort of utopian society that consists of mostly agnostic-agnostics, who "lack a religious belief" who fly around on unicorns that fart rainbows out of their ass

and then tell us about how they created the society-civilization that they currently inhabit

Europe you say? oh yeah, a long history of atheism there, yep, you got it

Perhaps because Communism was primarily a social philosophy about how the world "ought" to be run, while most other major strains of atheist philosophy focus more on how the world "is". It also seems the most authoritarian of those strains -- and even that seem a significant departure from Marx.

Uncle Tractor:Silverstaff: My whole point in this is not to accuse modern atheists of being like Stalin, merely to show that atheism as a belief system has no moral high ground to claim that it is free of the murderous history of religions.

Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods.

Which is in itself a belief, therefore part of a belief system, therefore a religion.

You repeat yourself, but repetition does not make your assertion more true.